I'm not sure I need to be the one to explain this to you, but you asked.
The hypocrisy is evident.
Hastert was partially influential in the implementation of a law that he later broke.
Whether the law has merit or not isn't the point.
Hastert decided that the populace should be governed in a certain way.
Later on, he decided he was not a party to the 'populace'.
And he broke a law he helped implement.
Hence, the hypocrisy.
Now, we can argue all day whether or not the 'law' he broke is 'legal', or if it's even 'Constitutional'.
Regardless of what Hastert did or didn't do, he's a hypocrite for imposing rules that he chooses not to follow.
Clear?